Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
null
Findings
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Energy Findings
    • Resilience Findings
    • Safety Findings
    • Transport Findings
    • Urban Findings
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Blog
  • covid-19
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:24253/feed
Transport Findings
April 15, 2023 AEST

Gender Gaps in Improvements to Shared-Ride Services: Insights from a Shared Mobility Survey

Ipek Nese Sener, Austin Sibu, Todd Hansen,
On-demand transportation servicesRidersharingGender differencesShared-mobility surveyTexas
Copyright Logoccby-sa-4.0 • https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.74249
Findings
Sener, Ipek Nese, Austin Sibu, and Todd Hansen. 2023. “Gender Gaps in Improvements to Shared-Ride Services: Insights from a Shared Mobility Survey.” Findings, April. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.32866/​001c.74249.
Save article as...▾

View more stats

Abstract

This study analyzed data from a 2022 shared mobility survey to investigate the impact of gender on the potential improvements to on-demand transportation services, particularly shared-ride services such as ridesharing through transportation network companies (TNCs) and microtransit. Results revealed that male respondents were more inclined to opt for financial incentives such as pretax benefits, direct subsidies, and subsidizing certain trips. Employer-related programs such as parking cash-out programs and flexible working hours were also found to be more appealing to male respondents. In contrast, female respondents placed a greater emphasis on safety-related measures, indicating that safety concerns may be too significant for them to overlook, even when presented with financial incentives.

1. Questions

On-demand transportation services allow passengers to book rides, usually through a digital application or platform, at locations and times convenient to them, as opposed to services that only travel between specific locations or follow a strict schedule, such as fixed-route public transit. Some examples include TNCs that connect travelers to drivers using personal vehicles, which can also be provided as a shared service with other unknown passengers as well as microtransit services, which pool passenger trips in shuttles or vans together using real-time routing and scheduling (Hansen and Sener 2022).

While acknowledging that this is an area where more research is needed, earlier studies have provided critical insights into potential reasons for gender differences in opinions and the use of on-demand transportation services. A US-based online survey revealed that females were more likely to abandon ridesharing services, while males were more likely to continue using them, despite an equal likelihood of trying the services between males and females (Morris et al. 2019). According to a study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Boston, Massachusetts (Ge et al. 2016), some female riders felt their drivers were overly chatty and were attempting to flirt with them. In China, the unwanted sexual attention and higher risk of sexual assault may explain why female TNC service users (through DiDi) perceived more physical risk than male users and were more likely to discontinue the use of the service as a result (Ma et al. 2019). In Karachi, Pakistan, both cisgender and transgender women reported facing sexual harassment and assault in taxis and preferred open vehicles like rickshaws instead (Panjwani 2018). Additionally, transwomen experienced discrimination when using ridesharing services. In another study focusing on shared taxis in Iran, the fear of abuse and imaginary harassment were found to influence women’s transportation-related decisions (Yeganeh et al. 2022).

This study hypothesized that targeted policies and programs that address the needs of different gender groups could incentivize them to adopt shared-ride services, leading to a higher overall rate of adoption. Specifically, the study sought to answer questions such as: What are the specific barriers that prevent different gender groups from utilizing these services, and how can they be overcome? To what extent can policies and programs impact the adoption of shared-ride services among different gender groups?

2. Methods

The primary data used in this study was obtained from an online shared mobility survey conducted early 2022 across 10 Texas cities, including San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Lubbock, Denton, Edinburg, Arlington, Bastrop, and Terrell, with all having TNCs and/or microtransit services in operation at the launch of the survey. The survey included questions regarding the individuals and household characteristics, use of various modes of transportation, as well as specific questions related to the on-demand transportation services including trends, attitudes, perceptions, barriers and solutions. The survey targeted individuals aged 18 or above and was conducted in both English and Spanish. To ensure a representative sample, quotas on demographic characteristics were established. The final analytical sample included a total of 2,527 participants, representing a reasonably representative sample of Texas adults when compared to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2020.[1]

To confirm whether the survey responses for specific questions of interest differed across gender, researchers used Pearson’s chi-square test for homogeneity of proportions. When there was only one degree of freedom (i.e., only two comparison groups), researchers used Yates’ continuity correction. The results of this analysis based on gender are presented below.

3. Findings

Survey participants were given several options for changes to shared-ride services relating to operational improvements, government policies, and employer programs that would make them personally more likely to use those services. Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 summarize the differences in responses by gender including the respective sample counts and proportions for each group, the χ2(k-1) test statistics, and the corresponding p-values.

From Table 1, at the 0.05 significance level, the difference in proportions for males and females was found to be significant for a variety of different operational improvements (nonbinary and third-gender individuals were excluded due to a small sample size that produced zeroes for certain categories). Females were significantly more likely to want to set a preference for the gender of other passengers in a shared vehicle, confirming that a gender-dedicated system might be more popular among women than a gender-free system for choosing passengers (Sarriera et al. 2017; Tang et al. 2021). Broadcasting the vehicles’ current location and having video surveillance on board were both found to make females feel safer in a shared ride. Females were also more concerned than males about trips taking too long, with a higher proportion wanting guaranteed limits on additional stops and financial reimbursement for excessively long trips.

Table 1.Gender Differences Regarding Operational Improvements to Shared-Ride Services.
Operational Improvement Count Proportion χ2-
statistic
p-⁠value
Male Female Male Female
Designated boarding zones 149 154 0.140 0.107 5.993 0.014
Guaranteed time window 294 443 0.267 0.308 2.742 0.098
Guaranteed limit on additional stops 264 434 0.248 0.301 8.373 0.004
Financial reimbursement if trip goes past the estimated travel time 274 446 0.258 0.310 7.887 0.005
Priority preference option 177 204 0.166 0.142 2.702 0.100
Sequential drop-offs in order of boarding 161 209 0.151 0.145 0.140 0.709
Viewable names, genders, and ages of other passengers 174 260 0.164 0.181 1.121 0.290
Viewable pictures of other passengers 170 242 0.160 0.168 0.248 0.618
Preference option for gender of other passengers 156 265 0.147 0.184 5.859 0.016
Rating option for passengers/viewable ratings of other passengers 195 242 0.183 0.168 0.880 0.348
Company vetting of other passengers 203 234 0.191 0.162 3.206 0.073
Match option with other passengers from a trusted network 206 271 0.194 0.188 0.084 0.772
Current location broadcasts during a trip to a trusted person 224 379 0.211 0.263 8.998 0.003
On-call concierge number or helpline 200 298 0.188 0.207 1.266 0.260
Formal code of conduct for passengers 240 333 0.226 0.231 0.082 0.774
Onboard video surveillance 258 414 0.242 0.288 6.089 0.014
None of the above would make me more likely to share a trip with a stranger 111 239 0.104 0.166 18.832 <0.001

Looking at Table 2, all but two of the potential government policies for shared-ride services were significant at the 0.05 level. The sharpest differences between males and females related to wide-ranging policies, including priority traffic signals for pooled vehicles, tax advantages, and regulating user data. Males were primarily focused on financial incentives from the government to make them more likely to share a ride, such as pretax benefits, direct subsidies, and subsidizing certain trips that connect to other transportation hubs. Females were once again concerned with safety, including surveillance and more open reporting of safety incidents.

Table 2.Gender Differences Regarding Government Policies for Shared-Ride Services.
Government Policy Count Proportion χ2-
statistic
p-⁠value
Male Female Male Female
Creating designated boarding zones at busy intersections/curbside areas 201 204 0.189 0.142 9.727 0.002
Improving sidewalks and intersections at key destination areas 219 234 0.206 0.162 7.462 0.006
Implementing surveillance and security at designated boarding zones 264 417 0.248 0.29 5.105 0.024
Reducing local traffic speeds to improve safety for pedestrians 162 174 0.152 0.121 4.933 0.026
Adding high-occupancy lanes or priority lanes for pooled vehicle travel 201 221 0.189 0.153 5.234 0.022
Providing traffic signal priority for pooled vehicle travel 164 142 0.154 0.099 17.072 <0.001
Allowing for pretax benefits to be used for shared-ride trips 169 171 0.159 0.119 8.04 0.005
Providing a direct subsidy to users who take shared-ride trips 199 218 0.187 0.151 5.346 0.021
Creating tax advantages for employers who have shared-ride programs 197 188 0.185 0.131 13.6 <0.001
Regulating private transportation providers to report safety incidents within shared-ride vehicles 195 293 0.183 0.203 1.465 0.226
Regulating private transportation providers to make service more available in my community 187 201 0.176 0.14 5.84 0.016
Regulating the sale or use of data generated from apps 204 192 0.192 0.133 15.237 <0.001
Regulating fixed fares between more destinations 228 327 0.214 0.227 0.509 0.476
Creating better service connections to rail or bus transit service hubs 238 262 0.224 0.182 6.412 0.011
Subsidizing the cost of shared-ride trips that connect to transit hubs 253 283 0.238 0.197 5.947 0.015
None of the above would make me more likely to share a trip with a stranger 138 351 0.13 0.244 49.924 <0.001

As seen in Table 3, employers had far fewer options to incentivize sharing a ride. There was no statistically significant difference across gender regarding implementing surveillance and security at designated boarding zones as an employer program, likely suggesting that efforts to improve safety and security are considered as a responsibility of operational improvements and government policies rather than their employers. Males were again primarily concerned about financial incentives, with direct subsidies and a parking cash-out program much more likely to influence them than females. Males were also more likely to want flexible working hours as a way to incentivize them to use shared-ride services. Although surprising given that previous polls have found that females prioritize flexible working hours and locations more than males (Comoglio and Benditt 2021), this finding may be attributed to the fact that females tend to bear a higher share of household chores (Brenan 2020) and caregiving responsibilities (Botek 2022). Furthermore, a global TNC study revealed that women tend to use ride-hailing services for a variety of household management and social trips, while men use them more for commuting and business purposes (IFC, 2018).

Table 3.Gender Differences Regarding Employer Programs for Shared-Ride Services.
Employer Program Count Proportion χ2-
statistic
p-⁠value
Male Female Male Female
Creating designated boarding zones at my workplace 218 231 0.205 0.16 7.923 0.005
Implementing surveillance and security at designated boarding zones 291 420 0.273 0.292 0.906 0.341
Partnering with on-demand service providers to improve service availability at their locations 221 262 0.208 0.182 2.446 0.118
Creating rewards programs for taking shared-ride trips 348 484 0.327 0.336 0.187 0.666
Providing a direct subsidy for taking shared-ride trips 283 257 0.266 0.178 27.185 <0.001
Providing a parking cash-out program for taking shared-ride trips 233 263 0.219 0.183 4.862 0.027
Creating programs for sharing rides with other coworkers or known networks of people 259 344 0.243 0.239 0.046 0.830
Providing a guaranteed ride home program as a backup transportation option 305 411 0.287 0.285 0.001 0.982
Permitting flexible working hours for commuting to/from work 315 359 0.296 0.249 6.562 0.010
Permitting flexible work-from-home schedules for some days during the week 277 351 0.26 0.244 0.81 0.368
None of the above would make me more likely to share a trip with a stranger 143 344 0.134 0.239 41.979 <0.001

The starkest difference was in the proportions of males and females who said they would not share a ride, irrespective of changes to the systems and potential improvements. The hesitancy of females about sharing rides with strangers is understandable considering they are more at risk from assault, harassment, and exploitation as noted earlier. Effective policy recommendations that prioritize safety require a nuanced approach that considers women’s experiences and concerns, rather than placing the burden of responsibility on them to change their behavior. If policies succeed in addressing these issues, the increased number of women using shared-ride services and improved perception could also change the attitudes of those who previously said they would never share a ride.


Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Institute for Congestion Reduction (NICR) and funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology University Transportation Centers Program under Grant No. 69A3551947136. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback.


  1. For more information on the larger study and the survey, please see: https://nicr.usf.edu/2022/01/20/2-2-2_examiningondemandtransportation/

Submitted: March 19, 2023 AEST

Accepted: April 11, 2023 AEST

References

Botek, A. 2022. “Sons vs. Daughters: The Role of Gender in Caring for Aging Parents.” Aging Care. https:/​/​www.agingcare.com/​articles/​daughters-care-more-for-parents-than-sons-171474.htm.
Google Scholar
Brenan, M. 2020. “Women Still Handle Main Household Tasks in US.” Gallup. https:/​/​news.gallup.com/​poll/​283979/​women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx.
Comoglio, A., and L. Benditt. 2021. “Working from Home Is Working for Working Women.” YouGov. https:/​/​today.yougov.com/​topics/​economy/​articles-reports/​2022/​11/​21/​working-home-working-for-working-women-poll.
Ge, Y., C.R. Knittel, D. MacKenzie, and S. Zoepf. 2016. “Racial and Gender Discrimination in Transportation Network Companies.” NBER Working Paper No w22776. National Bureau of Economic Research. https:/​/​ssrn.com/​abstract=2861708.
Hansen, T., and I.N. Sener. 2022. “Strangers On This Road We Are On: A Literature Review of Pooling in On-Demand Mobility Services.” Transportation Research Record 03611981221123801.
Google Scholar
International Finance Corporation. 2018. “Driving Toward Equality: Women, Ride-Hailing, and the Sharing Economy.” International Finance Corporation. https:/​/​www.ifc.org/​wps/​wcm/​connect/​62a2871b-271b-4256-b426-65b2012d00f7/​00418+IFC+DTE+Report_Complete_Layout+Final2-pxp.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=m9ksr4q.
Ma, Liang, Xin Zhang, Xiaoyan Ding, and Gaoshan Wang. 2019. “Risk Perception and Intention to Discontinue Use of Ride-Hailing Services in China: Taking the Example of DiDi Chuxing.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 66:459–70. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.trf.2019.09.021.
Google Scholar
Morris, E.A., A.N. Pratt, Y. Zhou, S.M. Khan, J.L. Derochers, A. Brown, and M. Chowdhury. 2019. “Assessing the Experience of Providers and Users of Transportation Network Company Ridesharing Services.” Center for Connected Multimodal Mobility, Clemson University. https:/​/​cecas.clemson.edu/​C2M2/​wp-content/​uploads/​2019/​06/​Revised_FinalCopy_UberPool-report-1.pdf.
Panjwani, Neha. 2018. “Mainstreaming Gender in Karachi’s Public Transport Policy.” European Journal of Sustainable Development 7 (1): 355–64. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.14207/​ejsd.2018.v7n1p355.
Google Scholar
Sarriera, Javier Morales, Germán Escovar Álvarez, Kelly Blynn, Andrew Alesbury, Timothy Scully, and Jinhua Zhao. 2017. “To Share or Not to Share: Investigating the Social Aspects of Dynamic Ridesharing.” Transportation Research Record 2605 (1): 109–17. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3141/​2605-11.
Google Scholar
Tang, Yanli, Pengfei Guo, Christopher S. Tang, and Yulan Wang. 2021. “Gender-Related Operational Issues Arising from on-Demand Ride-Hailing Platforms: Safety Concerns and System Configuration.” Production and Operations Management 30 (10): 3481–96. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​poms.13444.
Google Scholar
United States Census Bureau. 2022. “American Community Survey 2020.” https:/​/​www.census.gov/​programs-surveys/​acs/​.
Yeganeh, Sayna Firoozi, Navid Khademi, Hojatollah Farahani, and Mohammad Ali Besharat. 2022. “A Qualitative Exploration of Factors Influencing Women’s Intention to Use Shared Taxis: A Study on the Characteristics of Urban Commuting Behavior in Iran.” Transport Policy 129:90–104. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tranpol.2022.10.001.
Google Scholar

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system